Criminal Justice System: Ethical Considerations and Case Analysis

This report provides an analysis of the criminal justice system, focusing on a case involving police misconduct and the misuse of department resources. It explores the importance of honesty and ethical conduct within law enforcement, referencing past disciplinary actions and the need for high standards. The report delves into relevant case law, including Brady v. Maryland, Kyles v. Whitley, and Giglio v. United States, to illustrate the impact of evidence disclosure and witness credibility on legal outcomes. The discussion examines the implications of these cases, emphasizing the potential consequences of concealing evidence and the importance of upholding due process. The report concludes by highlighting the need for accountability and the suspension of officers found guilty of misconduct, reinforcing the principle that law enforcement officials must adhere to higher ethical standards than the general public.

Running Head: Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
[Type the document subtitle]
System04128
[Pick the date]

Criminal Justice
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Investigation...............................................................................................................................2
Definitions and dialog................................................................................................................3
Cases..........................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................5
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................6
1 | P a g e

Criminal Justice
Introduction
Before going into the present case, we must take into consideration that ten years
back, the accused officer was involved in a case related to traffic violation and in this case,
the officer was at fault. The Deputy Chief of Police that the officer in question was accessing
the internet and using pornographic content. When he was asked initially about the
accusation, the officer rejected the claims. Upon cutting edge examinations it was resolved
that the officials' secret word was utilized to draw up the obscene pictures. When the official
was stood up to with the new data he admitted to the wrong doing and expressed that it would
not happen again in future (Reimund, 2013).
Honesty is a standout amongst the most urgent character establishments to the extent
successful cops are concerned however there has been a developing dissatisfaction on what
has appeared to be a broad inadequacy of respectability just as absence of help for any
disciplinary measures by named sheets just as politically chosen individuals. The principle
base of all insidiousness is because of absence of honesty either from deadened working
execution just as unnecessary power. Honesty and morals ought to be the primary target and
principle issues to be considered during assessment of any interior examination. At the point
when the officials are honest on wrongdoing, it is vital to give them certifiable support
through referring to the case similar to a relieving factor. It is basic to clarify that lying
among cops is a noteworthy end offense (United States, 2011). This paper will thus break
down a case drew out into the open of an official who utilized one of the PCs in the watch
division improperly.
Investigation
It has been drawn out into the open by my Deputy Chief of Police that one of the
officials who were examined was improperly utilizing one of the PCs in the watch division. It
was henceforth established that the official utilized the PC to look for obscene sites. When he
was defied with the dispute, this official prevented from securing having any learning on this
occurrence. On further examination, the PC wrongdoing expert decided on the way that the
official sign in secret phrase had been utilized to enter the unapproved sites (Noble, 2003).
The official consequently admitted to the bad behaviour and insisted that it could never
happen some other time. This official has been with my association for a long time and the
main disciplinary move that was made against him had been for being engaged with a car
crash 10 years prior.
2 | P a g e

Criminal Justice
The Police officials should have high standards as compared with public. If the
normal person had done the same crime then he would have been suspended from the work
with immediate effect. The officer should have been trusted with honesty and rightful
conduct and moreover the officer in accusation had not only done the rime but also stole the
time of the public. The office should not allow a person who gives importance to his personal
interest rather than public interest (Powell, 2015).
Definitions and dialog
The cops' wrong utilization of the PC to see some explicitly express data and material
that are close to home and inconsequential to the authorities employment capacity is totally
untrustworthy. This can cause people groups lives to be tremendously influenced and
subsequently the exacting activity as a notice to the remainder of the officials. The division
approach unmistakably expresses that the PCs that are possessed by the region ought not be
utilized for wrong and individual subjects. There is clearly no any room in the law
requirement for such sort of conduct and the best way to ensure the trustworthiness of the
whole office is by ending the official as a future cautioning against such questionable
activities.
Cases
In the case of Brady v. Maryland (Brady v Maryland, 1963), the state was found to
hold the evidence that could have save the defendant and it was held to be wrongful
conviction. Many of the statements were given to him but when on July 9, in which the
Boblit agreed to the real homicide, it was hold by the prosecution and it did not came into the
light of the petitioner until his conviction has been affirmed (Brady v. Maryland, 2019). The
Court said that there has been violation of due process which is mentioned in Fourteen
Amendment (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), 2019). This shows that to how much
limit, there is requirement of law enforcement.
This issue again came in the case of Kyles v. Whitley (Kyles v. Whitley, 1995), in
which Kyles was the petitioner who was held guilty of the murder of first degree by
Louisiana jury and was sentenced to death but after sometime, it was revealed that the state
failed to disclose some of the evidence which was in the favour of Kyles (Kyles v. Whitley,
1995). The evidences which were included are the statement of witness which were taken by
the police after the murder, an informer named ‘Beanie’ was not in the court to testify and he
3 | P a g e

Criminal Justice
was the person who was giving all the information to the police and the printout that included
the license number of those cars which were parked outside the crime scene on that night on
which the murder took place and that printout did not included the number of Kyles’ car
(Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), 2019). It was assumed that the end effect of the said
evidence suggests that there is solid possibility that the conviction of Kyle would not have
taken place if it had been given at the time of trial. The court finally concluded that the
things which are not disclosed are of same importance as the things which are revealed and it
could have lead the difference in the judgment and the decision could have been overturned
(Kyles v. Whitley, 2019).
In Giglio v. United States (Giglio v. United States, 1972), the whole intention of the
witness was not disclosed. In this case, the prosecution was not able to reveal the alleged
promise of flexibility made to its main witness in lieu of testimony, it put doubt on the
intention of the evidence given, and it prohibited the defence from having the systematic
cross-examination. The United States assistant attorney who was presenting the case to the
jury made promise to witness and attorney who really tries the case was not aware of the said
promise but the court held that it is not the appropriate excuse. It was the duty of the
prosecution side that it should provide all the correct evidence to the jury but here it was not
done and hence it made the breach of due process of law that required new trial. The promise
was made to those witness who were the co-conspirators of defendant so he as having a
vested interest in implication of the defendant.
The motivation of witness held in the case, Unites States v Bagley (United States v
Bagley, 1985). In this case, “Bagley filed for the discovery motion from trial asking data
regarding “contracts, promises made to witnesses in lieu of testimony” and it was not
revealed by the government irrespective of the fact that an offer “is being made to two of its
main witnesses who helped Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in making an
secret investigation of respondent”. The government produces the affidavits that were signed
by these appropriate witnesses and saying about their secret dealings with respondent and
ending with the statement that the said affidavits were formed without any threats or awards.
The verdict that held respondent liable was changed because the government failed to reveal
the impeachment evidence which was asked by respondent and he could have used to proper
cross-examination.
4 | P a g e

Criminal Justice
But it should be noted that in United States v. Agurs that when the evidence that was
not revealed was not have any effect of the verdict of the case and the verdict of the case was
allowed without any opposition even if the prosecutor did not reveal all the reliable evidences
which could have been used in the case of defendant. In this case the respondent was held
liable for the second degree murder of killing Sewell through knife during the fight. The court
held in this case that the evidence against defendant was so strong that the extra information
would not have been having any result on the outcome of the decision of the court.
Conclusion
These cases shows that there should be honesty between the police officials and the
prosecutors. In the above mentioned cases related to the court cases, the government was not
trying to conceal the personal harms but rather they were doing at that the personal
conviction could have been safeguarded. Here in this case, the accused police officer who
was using the pornographic websites is not having any kind of defence like this. No doubt
that there is debate regarding the leniency to some extent. In the broader interest of the justice
system, the officer should be suspended by taking into consideration his past conduct. The
police officials should maintain high standards than the general public in the way to how to
perform their task.
Bibliography
5 | P a g e

Criminal Justice
Brady v Maryland, 373 (US 1963).
Brady v. Maryland. (2019). Retrieved from Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/490
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (2019). Retrieved from Justia:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/
Giglio v. United States, 405 (US 1972).
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 (US 1995).
Kyles v. Whitley. (1995). Retrieved from Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-7927
Kyles v. Whitley. (2019). Retrieved from Quimbee: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/kyles-v-
whitley
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). (2019). Retrieved from Justia:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/419/
Noble. (2003). Police Officer Truthfulness and the Brady Decision.
Powell, R. P. (2015). Officer Untruthfulness and its Impact on the Law Enforcement
Profession 2015 POAG Conference Ryan P. Powell. Retrieved from Slide Player:
https://slideplayer.com/slide/8075481/
Reimund, M. E. (2013). Are Brady Lists (aka Liar’s Lists) the Scarlet Letter for Law
Enforcement Officers? A Need for Expansion and Uniformity. International Journal
of Humanities and Social Science .
United States v Bagley, 473 (Burger Court 1985).
6 | P a g e